When the project rises above hobby status and has legitimate appeal it may be considered. Suggestion:Offer an album to a legitimate independant reviewer (ie not Progarchives)or record label or even better get another legitimate Prog site interested in it.

The fact that Progarchives members/collabs are involved in this puts us in a difficult position.

When the project rises above hobby status and has legitimate appeal it may be considered. Suggestion:Offer an album to a legitimate independent reviewer (ie not Progarchives)or record label or even better get another legitimate Prog site interested in it.

The fact that Progarchives members/collabs are involved in this puts us in a difficult position.

I have already offered to review Alex's album for Progressor, and got the green light from the site's owner. Unfortunately, I am very much backlogged (have some 100 CDs at home), so I cannot promise to do anything at a very short notice - but review it I will, I promise.

I have already offered to review Alex's album for Progressor, and got the green light from the site's owner. Unfortunately, I am very much backlogged (have some 100 CDs at home), so I cannot promise to do anything at a very short notice - but review it I will, I promise.

Of course it should be evaluated. I am just saying that we should be careful. The archives is a serious and respected database of legitimate bands and needs to be discerning in what it includes. A viable product is difficult to define but record labels seem to do it very effectively. We should not be bushwhacked into including every bedroom hobbyist for fear of offending a current member, ex-band members and other proposers who might have a vested interest. That is what Myspace is for, not Progarchives. It should be a privilege to be included with the likes of Pink Floyd, Genesis, Dream Theater, Yes et al and whilst we cannot expect all bands to match up to those lofty standards we can at least expect that we do not tarnish those bands or our reputation with injudicious entries.

Of course it should be evaluated. I am just saying that we should be careful. The archives is a serious and respected database of legitimate bands and needs to be discerning in what it includes. A viable product is difficult to define but record labels seem to do it very effectively. We should not be bushwhacked into including every bedroom hobbyist for fear of offending a current member, ex-band members and other proposers who might have a vested interest. That is what Myspace is for, not Progarchives. It should be a privilege to be included with the likes of Pink Floyd, Genesis, Dream Theater, Yes et al and whilst we cannot expect all bands to match up to those lofty standards we can at least expect that we do not tarnish those bands or our reputation with injudicious entries.

Okay, I get your point; and agree with it.

As I said, I don't think that knowing one of the members would alter my judgement and/or my evaluation of said band.

I will be careful in my evaluation as you suggested though. But I always am, I think.

The first two releases these guys did were clearly more-or-less tinkering around with ideas, and whether or not they legitimately fit into this site was much more of an uncertainty.

However, with this latest release, it's clear to me that the musical composition and structure of the songs are much stronger and have a lot more merit. In other words, it can actually be called 'music' without any real doubt.

Whether or not that means they should be included here, I honestly have no idea. I'll leave that to the experts in the genre teams, but what I AM saying is that their music actually sounds like music now, and no longer feels like a kid simply mucked about in his room for a few hours. That's a step forward, in any case.

CoAM have been rejected by Eclectic and Avant in the past - if they are to be re-evaluated by either team it means they qualify as a "Controversial Band" and require the unanimous vote of every team member.

Identification of a controversial proposal

Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they:

Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR

They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials

::snip::

Edited by Dean - March 14 2010 at 19:50

"You know what uranium is, right?It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.But nobody talks about that."

CoAM have been rejected by Eclectic and Avant in the past - if they are to be re-evaluated by either team it means they qualify as a "Controversial Band" and require the unanimous vote of every team member.

Identification of a controversial proposal

Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they:

Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR

They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum